Part 3 of my series on the Oral Torah continues at 18Forty!
This time–and yes, the articles are getting longer–we tackle the question of dispute in halacha, or machloket.
If everything was given at Sinai, why do the rabbis argue about nearly everything?
Yosef Lindell 
במאי קמפלגי–UNDERSTANDING MACHLOKES—THE REVISED EDITION OF THE DYNAMICS OF DISPUTE
In this new edition, with its new title and cover design, the contents and sequence of the chapters are re-edited and rearranged, bringing the concepts discussed into sharper focus. The perspective on the issue of the Amoraim’s subservience to the Tannaim and the Mishnah is in particular further crystallized, and the chapter discussing the adage אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹקִים חַיִּים (“These and those are the Words of the Living G-d) is greatly expanded.
Throughout, corrections have been made, and additional valuable material has been provided, and a full index added, all in a new font and layout with Hebrew passages vocalized, and standardized transliterations and idiom in consonance with the wider readership of b’nei Torah (so that Moshe Rabbeinu replaces Moses, rebbi and talmid replaces mentor and disciple, etc.).
Zvi Lampel
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rabbi Lampel, thank you so much for making me aware of the new edition of your book. It really opened an entirely new world for me when I was in yeshiva. I will see if the link to your book on 18Forty can be updated.
LikeLike
Rabbi Lampel has a new version of his book out. https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Machlokes-Rabbi-Zvi-Lampel/dp/1607633620
As for your critique of his position… He and I have discussed it, and I have to agree with you. On the other hand, I think Dr. Halbertal is overstating the differences between the Rambam’s Accumulative view and the more Castillian and Qabbalah-consistent Constitutive view. Although I didn’t read his book, only his short presentation at https://rambam.merkaz.com/Class%204%20-%20Halbertal.pdf .
(Personally, I would see if 18forty is up to amending your post to including these links. I assume R Lampel’s old edition will go out of circulation, and if this essay by Dr Halbertal is the main point of what you’re recommending in ch. 2, it will give access to people not willing to buy the book.)
LikeLike
Rabbi Berger, thank you for your comment! I am going to ask 18forty to include the link to Rabbi Lampel’s new edition as well as the link to Dr. Halbertal’s online essay, which I believe it is identical or nearly identical to what is in the book.
As for the substance of your comment, you may very well be right that Dr. Halbertal overstates the differences. Jay Harris has a different way of distinguishing the Rambam and Ramban, focusing on Ramban’s view that Chazal had the authority through derash to make halachot deoraita.
I’ve also been made aware of two works in Hebrew which I have not read yet that categorize the Rishonim’s opinions. One is apparently called Nata Besocheinu by R. Shmuel Ariel. Another is called Misinai ad lishkas hagazis. If I ever rewrite these essays (for a book, perhaps?), I plan on spending more time trying to portray the Rishonim accurately.
LikeLike
And I thank you and Rabbi Berger for calling attention to my sefer. A thorough response to the essence of your critique would be lengthy; but I wish to give my word of honor that whatever emerged from my presentation regarding other rishonim’s positions is a result of considering the facts, and not an attempt to support a preconceived agenda.
There is however a clarification I’d like to make that is relatively short. Your essay states:
” The Rambam limits Chazal’s authority to create new law by saying that the laws generated through the 13 Middot are rabbinic-level obligations (de-rabbanan) and not Torah-level obligations (de-oraita). (That said, some have recently disputed that the Rambam said this.)”
The תשב”ץ and זוהר הרקיע, followed by all the 15th through 18th century commentators printed with the Sefer Hamitzvos* and Mishneh Torah,** disagree with the Ramban’s understanding of what the Rambam meant by labelling drash-generated halachos “de-rabbanan,” or “divrei sofrim,” etc. They prove he was not referring to the gravity of the halachos (such as in the sense of ספק דרבנן לקולא) or their authentic Scriptural credentials. Rambam was referring to the fact that it is only through the rabbanan that these de-oraita-level law details were discovered and that we know of them (and are therefore excluded from the 613 count of mitzvos Hashem explicitly told Moshe***–the issue the Rambam is dealing with).
I recommend Rav Dror Fixler’s essay, המוחים ההלכתיים במשנת הרמב”ם”, which thoroughly treats the Rambam’s expressions of מן התורה, דברי סופרים, דברי קבלה, מפי השמועה, מפי הקבלהת הלכה למשה מסיני, הלכה מפי השמועה, הלכה מפי הקבלה.
Click to access 10139.pdf
*זוהר הרקיע, מגילת אסתר, קנאת סופרים, לב שמח, מרגניתא טבא
** כסף משנה, לחם משנה
***Unless, says the Rambam, Chazal inform us that the halacha they darshenned is גוף התורה or מן התורה, meaning the halacha is really a kabalah miSinai.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comments! I have a great deal of learning yet to do.
LikeLike
You quoted the ritva but left out the last line! ונכון הוא לפי הדרש ובדרך האמת יש טעם סוד בדבר. I don’t know about you but to me “drash” implies not a historical or literal meaning but rather an esoteric or metaphorical sense.
The position should not be attributed to the ritva rather to the chakhmei tzarfas. And it should be noted that the ritva implies that he doesn’t argue with them but understands their position to be non literal and thus irrelevant to our topic.
LikeLike
Could be. Perhaps I should have called it “the position that the Ritva quotes from the French rabbis” or something like that. Of note though, the Ran has a very similar approach to the one the Ritva quotes here from the French scholars.
I’m also not convinced that the Ritva is calling their position esoteric or metaphorical given that he contrasts it with the derech ha-emes, which usually means a kabbalistic interpretation. I’m also not quite sure he rejects it or considers it irrelevant.
LikeLike
Cont. Also shemos rabba may be from as late as the tenth century! Hardly “chazal” . (Not to be confused with bereishis rabba or vayikra rabba which are older).
LikeLike
This is a very interesting point, one which I had not considered. I likely quoted this passage in shemos rabbah based on Menachem Elon’s discussion in his book on the history of halacha. But it is notable that it is not cited by Benjamin Sommer in his short discussion on Revelation & Authority regarding sources in chazal that admit to the development of the Oral Torah over time.
LikeLike
In your defense, your reference to Shemos Rabbah was the sentence:
“The Rambam’s position sounds akin to what we saw in Shemot Rabbah—that Moshe was not given the entire Oral Torah at Sinai, only principles of interpretation.”
It made no reference to Chazal, and it stands regardless of the alleged date of its being written.
But anyway, the statement from Shemos Rabbah is a quotation of Rebbi Abahu, a third-generation Amora.
LikeLiked by 1 person